(02-20-2013 09:42 AM)aughnanure Wrote:  

(02-19-2013 11:57 PM)College Basketball Fan Wrote:  

(02-19-2013 10:56 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  I don't know why you're projecting the future based on an analysis of this year, a single season. A bigger sample size makes more sense.

Once you include Butler and Xavier, it doesn't matter who else you put in the mix, the C7+ has advanced over 40 teams to the tournament over the past 10 years with 5 - 6 teams to the Final Four. That's a 4 - 5 bid league annually and with that number of teams in the Final 4, it's a power league by anyone's definition.

It is a gut feeling. My gut feeling is that 3 of the 7 schools leaving the broken Big East are probably going to be good, along with Butler and Xavier.

However, my gut feeling is that over half of the C7 are going to have a hard time winning games and getting into the tournament. Add Richmond, Saint Louis, and Dayton to that as well (double that for the "not a candidate" teams like Siena and Detroit).

If you have 5 strong teams and 7 teams that would be at the bottom of a power conference, you don't have a power conference. You have a slightly bigger MWC focused on the east coast instead of the west. To use a power conference analogy, the C7 would be the Big 12 without Kansas, but with five teams about where KState or Baylor are and seven TCUs and Texas Techs.

IMHO, this direction would make the C7 competitive with the A10, MWC, and nBE, not the power conferences. You have to take into account that this league doesn't have a blue blood type team, so it would have to offset top-end quality with quantity. You can argue that this league could be better than the SEC or Pac12 if those conferences had a down year, but the same argument applies to the other mid-major conferences.

If I had total control, I'd go with 10 teams (Butler + Xavier + Gonzaga/VCU/Creighton). If I had to go 12, I'd look at adding all of those teams over Richmond, Saint Louis, or Dayton. Only at 14+ would I add a team that doesn't have something basketball related that makes me say "wow." To me, the biggest issue is offsetting the teams in the C7 that haven't been strong lately.

This is an overreaction and an oversimplification. Are we going to compete with the ACC or B1G for the best conference? Of course not, and no teams we add will change that.

But could we compete with the Pac 12, SEC and Big 12? Absolutely. Those conferences that put around 3-6 teams in the tourney every year are where we are.

We are not going to be 'competing' with conferences that we have 3-4X as many bids as. The A-10 isn't getting 5 bids, much less more than 2 after the C7 raid. Marquette, Villanova, Georgetown, St. John's, Xavier, Butler, and Creighton puts this league head and shoulders above any non Power-6 and equal, if not better, than the Pac-12, SEC and Big 12 most years.

I agree that the C7+ will not compete on the level of the ACC but why not on the level of the Big Ten?

The potential membership of the C7+ has 52 bids and 6 Final Fours in the past 10 years. The current Big Ten membership has 54 bids and 6 Final fours in the past 10 years. Neither has won a national championship in the recent past 10 or 12 years. The two seem to be mirror images of each other to me.

The addition of Rutgers does nothing to improve Big Ten basketball. Maryland does improve them from 54 bids to 59 bids. But now we're comparing a 14 team league that averages 4.2 bids per member to a 12 team league that averages 4.3 bids per member. Is the 14 team league stronger?

If it's all about building bigger empires, the C7+ could also go to 14 by adding Gonzaga and St. Louis. That brings them from 52 bids to 63, or more than the Big Ten. Are they inclined to do so? I doubt it.

This isn't about a nuclear arms race to build the biggest empire. (Or is it?) The only solid evidence we have is what these programs have done in the recent past. Based on that, the C7+ is on par with the Big Ten or any of the other power conferences except for the ACC.

(02-20-2013 10:21 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-20-2013 10:07 AM)College Basketball Fan Wrote:  

(02-20-2013 09:40 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  Yes, I overlooked the MVC of the 1970's. There day was done when the Metro was formed in 1975 and the MVC lost Louisville, Memphis, etc. Indiana State was their last hurrah.

But my point remains the same. They haven't gotten anyone to a Final 4 in a very long time, i.e. 34 years. Let's look at the other midmajors you've mentioned in terms of Final 4's:

A10 - 1 Final Four in the entire history of the league - UMass (1996)

Mountain West - No Final Fours in league history

West Coast - San Francisco (1955, 56, 57)

New Big East - UConn (1999, 2004, 09, 11), Memphis (2008)

So, the nBE is the only one that has a team that has gone to the Final Four in recent memory. But the nBE is lacking depth. That group has gotten only 26 tournament bids in the last 10 years. That's a 2-3 bid league.

The C7+ has 50-52 bids in the last 10 years. That's a 5 bid league. And if they want to think outside the box, they could replace Dayton with Gonzaga, who has 10 bids in the last 10 years. That would give the C7+ 57 bids, or almost 6 (5.7) per year. No matter how you slice it, the C7+ is a notch above the nBE. More bids, more Final 4's.

We can do a more detailed analysis to show that none of these midmajors has the history of getting the number of bids that the C7+ have. But the bottom line is that the only way that the C7+ doesn't qualify as a power conference is if you require a team with a history of multiple national championships that gets to the tournament most of the time.

If that's the case, then the old Big East didn't qualify as a power conference either because they didn't have anyone who met those criteria until UConn's recent success. Are you really going to tell me that the old Big East was not a power conference?

One correction: the MWC would have UNLV, which has 4 Final Fours in the school's history. I don't know about any other school in that conference.

My criteria for being a power conference is thus:

1. Have a championship contending team every year, either in the form of a single superpower (Kansas, Kentucky), or in the form of multiple teams that could be that good but aren't that way every year (Big East with Louisville, Syracuse, UConn, Georgetown, etc.).

OR

2. Consistently get at least 50% of the league into the tournament.


I don't think the C7 + Butler/Xavier/Dayton/SLU/Richmond meets the first criteria. I see Georgetown as a potential Final Four team on good years, and may Butler and Xavier will get to that level as well, but I don't feel like there are enough good teams to guarantee that one will be that level almost every year.

Additionally, I don't feel that the C7 would meet the second criteria. That would be a 3-5 bid league, and I feel getting 50% of the teams into the tournament would be an exception, not the rule. Essentially, what I'm saying is that if you forced me to say which teams COULD be tournament level over the next 5-10 years, I would say:

C7:
Georgetown
Villanova
Marquette
St. John's

Candidates:
Butler
Xavier
Creighton
Gonzaga
VCU

That doesn't mean that DePaul couldn't regain its swagger or that Saint Louis won't continue to stay competitive, but I feel these are your best basketball schools for the near future. Loading up on teams outside this list makes it a lot harder to justify the C7 as a power conference. They may be better on some year's than the Pac 12 or Big 12 minus Kansas, but that doesn't mean they will be good enough to get respect in the media.

I think it's funny about Creighton. I think I thought they had been to the tourney a lot more than 4 times over the last 10 years. To me, them and Dayton are close to the same, with Dayton the better location. I mean only 1 more NCAA spot over last 10 years isn't that big of a deal.

I think the problem that Creighton will face. Some schools are going to say if we have to travel further to play a team, we might as well go to Gonzaga than Creighton.

While true, it's how you play the stats. If you go the last 15 years, it's 8 of 15. The only thing Dayton has over Creighton is location and to some, that's not much of an advantage since there is some overlap with Xavier as far as market.

(02-20-2013 10:21 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-20-2013 10:07 AM)College Basketball Fan Wrote:  

(02-20-2013 09:40 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  Yes, I overlooked the MVC of the 1970's. There day was done when the Metro was formed in 1975 and the MVC lost Louisville, Memphis, etc. Indiana State was their last hurrah.

But my point remains the same. They haven't gotten anyone to a Final 4 in a very long time, i.e. 34 years. Let's look at the other midmajors you've mentioned in terms of Final 4's:

A10 - 1 Final Four in the entire history of the league - UMass (1996)

Mountain West - No Final Fours in league history

West Coast - San Francisco (1955, 56, 57)

New Big East - UConn (1999, 2004, 09, 11), Memphis (2008)

So, the nBE is the only one that has a team that has gone to the Final Four in recent memory. But the nBE is lacking depth. That group has gotten only 26 tournament bids in the last 10 years. That's a 2-3 bid league.

The C7+ has 50-52 bids in the last 10 years. That's a 5 bid league. And if they want to think outside the box, they could replace Dayton with Gonzaga, who has 10 bids in the last 10 years. That would give the C7+ 57 bids, or almost 6 (5.7) per year. No matter how you slice it, the C7+ is a notch above the nBE. More bids, more Final 4's.

We can do a more detailed analysis to show that none of these midmajors has the history of getting the number of bids that the C7+ have. But the bottom line is that the only way that the C7+ doesn't qualify as a power conference is if you require a team with a history of multiple national championships that gets to the tournament most of the time.

If that's the case, then the old Big East didn't qualify as a power conference either because they didn't have anyone who met those criteria until UConn's recent success. Are you really going to tell me that the old Big East was not a power conference?

One correction: the MWC would have UNLV, which has 4 Final Fours in the school's history. I don't know about any other school in that conference.

My criteria for being a power conference is thus:

1. Have a championship contending team every year, either in the form of a single superpower (Kansas, Kentucky), or in the form of multiple teams that could be that good but aren't that way every year (Big East with Louisville, Syracuse, UConn, Georgetown, etc.).

OR

2. Consistently get at least 50% of the league into the tournament.


I don't think the C7 + Butler/Xavier/Dayton/SLU/Richmond meets the first criteria. I see Georgetown as a potential Final Four team on good years, and may Butler and Xavier will get to that level as well, but I don't feel like there are enough good teams to guarantee that one will be that level almost every year.

Additionally, I don't feel that the C7 would meet the second criteria. That would be a 3-5 bid league, and I feel getting 50% of the teams into the tournament would be an exception, not the rule. Essentially, what I'm saying is that if you forced me to say which teams COULD be tournament level over the next 5-10 years, I would say:

C7:
Georgetown
Villanova
Marquette
St. John's

Candidates:
Butler
Xavier
Creighton
Gonzaga
VCU

That doesn't mean that DePaul couldn't regain its swagger or that Saint Louis won't continue to stay competitive, but I feel these are your best basketball schools for the near future. Loading up on teams outside this list makes it a lot harder to justify the C7 as a power conference. They may be better on some year's than the Pac 12 or Big 12 minus Kansas, but that doesn't mean they will be good enough to get respect in the media.

I think it's funny about Creighton. I think I thought they had been to the tourney a lot more than 4 times over the last 10 years. To me, them and Dayton are close to the same, with Dayton the better location. I mean only 1 more NCAA spot over last 10 years isn't that big of a deal.

I think the problem that Creighton will face. Some schools are going to say if we have to travel further to play a team, we might as well go to Gonzaga than Creighton.

There would certainly be nothing wrong with adding Gonzaga since they've gone to the tournament 14 years in a row. That's the benefit that they bring.

But let's not minimize the disadvantage which is their location. They're 1500 miles farther west than Creighton. That's a lot! They have only been to the tournament once in the entire history of the school before the Mark Few era. He is a truly unique guy who loves the area. Almost any other coach with his record would have left the school years ago. But whenever Mark Few leaves Gonzaga, if they revert to their previous history, they're still 1500 miles farther west than Omaha. They can't change their location.

Creighton can change their level of success. 4 bids can become 8 bids. That isn't fixed the way the Gonzaga geography is. The advantage that they bring is that they draw 17,000 fans per game. That's phenomenal. That's better than any current or prospective member of the C7+. And it isn't close. Dayton is very good at 12,000. But it's not like they're the same. Gonzaga only draws 6,000 fans per game.

(02-20-2013 10:29 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(02-20-2013 09:42 AM)aughnanure Wrote:  

(02-19-2013 11:57 PM)College Basketball Fan Wrote:  

(02-19-2013 10:56 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  I don't know why you're projecting the future based on an analysis of this year, a single season. A bigger sample size makes more sense.

Once you include Butler and Xavier, it doesn't matter who else you put in the mix, the C7+ has advanced over 40 teams to the tournament over the past 10 years with 5 - 6 teams to the Final Four. That's a 4 - 5 bid league annually and with that number of teams in the Final 4, it's a power league by anyone's definition.

It is a gut feeling. My gut feeling is that 3 of the 7 schools leaving the broken Big East are probably going to be good, along with Butler and Xavier.

However, my gut feeling is that over half of the C7 are going to have a hard time winning games and getting into the tournament. Add Richmond, Saint Louis, and Dayton to that as well (double that for the "not a candidate" teams like Siena and Detroit).

If you have 5 strong teams and 7 teams that would be at the bottom of a power conference, you don't have a power conference. You have a slightly bigger MWC focused on the east coast instead of the west. To use a power conference analogy, the C7 would be the Big 12 without Kansas, but with five teams about where KState or Baylor are and seven TCUs and Texas Techs.

IMHO, this direction would make the C7 competitive with the A10, MWC, and nBE, not the power conferences. You have to take into account that this league doesn't have a blue blood type team, so it would have to offset top-end quality with quantity. You can argue that this league could be better than the SEC or Pac12 if those conferences had a down year, but the same argument applies to the other mid-major conferences.

If I had total control, I'd go with 10 teams (Butler + Xavier + Gonzaga/VCU/Creighton). If I had to go 12, I'd look at adding all of those teams over Richmond, Saint Louis, or Dayton. Only at 14+ would I add a team that doesn't have something basketball related that makes me say "wow." To me, the biggest issue is offsetting the teams in the C7 that haven't been strong lately.

This is an overreaction and an oversimplification. Are we going to compete with the ACC or B1G for the best conference? Of course not, and no teams we add will change that.

But could we compete with the Pac 12, SEC and Big 12? Absolutely. Those conferences that put around 3-6 teams in the tourney every year are where we are.

We are not going to be 'competing' with conferences that we have 3-4X as many bids as. The A-10 isn't getting 5 bids, much less more than 2 after the C7 raid. Marquette, Villanova, Georgetown, St. John's, Xavier, Butler, and Creighton puts this league head and shoulders above any non Power-6 and equal, if not better, than the Pac-12, SEC and Big 12 most years.

I agree that the C7+ will not compete on the level of the ACC but why not on the level of the Big Ten?

The potential membership of the C7+ has 52 bids and 6 Final Fours in the past 10 years. The current Big Ten membership has 54 bids and 6 Final fours in the past 10 years. Neither has won a national championship in the recent past 10 or 12 years. The two seem to be mirror images of each other to me.

The addition of Rutgers does nothing to improve Big Ten basketball. Maryland does improve them from 54 bids to 59 bids. But now we're comparing a 14 team league that averages 4.2 bids per member to a 12 team league that averages 4.3 bids per member. Is the 14 team league stronger?

If it's all about building bigger empires, the C7+ could also go to 14 by adding Gonzaga and St. Louis. That brings them from 52 bids to 63, or more than the Big Ten. Are they inclined to do so? I doubt it.

This isn't about a nuclear arms race to build the biggest empire. (Or is it?) The only solid evidence we have is what these programs have done in the recent past. Based on that, the C7+ is on par with the Big Ten or any of the other power conferences except for the ACC.

Part of the numbers with the Big Ten are actually funny. They now have both teams that made the title game in year 11 of the study(Indiana vs Maryland).

Even w/o that- if they are at 59 and we are at 50-52- that's them getting 6 teams in, us at 5 teams. Folks when they look at the # of bids don't look at the # of teams in the conference, just # of bids.

(02-20-2013 10:34 AM)Jet915 Wrote:  

(02-20-2013 10:21 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-20-2013 10:07 AM)College Basketball Fan Wrote:  

(02-20-2013 09:40 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  Yes, I overlooked the MVC of the 1970's. There day was done when the Metro was formed in 1975 and the MVC lost Louisville, Memphis, etc. Indiana State was their last hurrah.

But my point remains the same. They haven't gotten anyone to a Final 4 in a very long time, i.e. 34 years. Let's look at the other midmajors you've mentioned in terms of Final 4's:

A10 - 1 Final Four in the entire history of the league - UMass (1996)

Mountain West - No Final Fours in league history

West Coast - San Francisco (1955, 56, 57)

New Big East - UConn (1999, 2004, 09, 11), Memphis (2008)

So, the nBE is the only one that has a team that has gone to the Final Four in recent memory. But the nBE is lacking depth. That group has gotten only 26 tournament bids in the last 10 years. That's a 2-3 bid league.

The C7+ has 50-52 bids in the last 10 years. That's a 5 bid league. And if they want to think outside the box, they could replace Dayton with Gonzaga, who has 10 bids in the last 10 years. That would give the C7+ 57 bids, or almost 6 (5.7) per year. No matter how you slice it, the C7+ is a notch above the nBE. More bids, more Final 4's.

We can do a more detailed analysis to show that none of these midmajors has the history of getting the number of bids that the C7+ have. But the bottom line is that the only way that the C7+ doesn't qualify as a power conference is if you require a team with a history of multiple national championships that gets to the tournament most of the time.

If that's the case, then the old Big East didn't qualify as a power conference either because they didn't have anyone who met those criteria until UConn's recent success. Are you really going to tell me that the old Big East was not a power conference?

One correction: the MWC would have UNLV, which has 4 Final Fours in the school's history. I don't know about any other school in that conference.

My criteria for being a power conference is thus:

1. Have a championship contending team every year, either in the form of a single superpower (Kansas, Kentucky), or in the form of multiple teams that could be that good but aren't that way every year (Big East with Louisville, Syracuse, UConn, Georgetown, etc.).

OR

2. Consistently get at least 50% of the league into the tournament.


I don't think the C7 + Butler/Xavier/Dayton/SLU/Richmond meets the first criteria. I see Georgetown as a potential Final Four team on good years, and may Butler and Xavier will get to that level as well, but I don't feel like there are enough good teams to guarantee that one will be that level almost every year.

Additionally, I don't feel that the C7 would meet the second criteria. That would be a 3-5 bid league, and I feel getting 50% of the teams into the tournament would be an exception, not the rule. Essentially, what I'm saying is that if you forced me to say which teams COULD be tournament level over the next 5-10 years, I would say:

C7:
Georgetown
Villanova
Marquette
St. John's

Candidates:
Butler
Xavier
Creighton
Gonzaga
VCU

That doesn't mean that DePaul couldn't regain its swagger or that Saint Louis won't continue to stay competitive, but I feel these are your best basketball schools for the near future. Loading up on teams outside this list makes it a lot harder to justify the C7 as a power conference. They may be better on some year's than the Pac 12 or Big 12 minus Kansas, but that doesn't mean they will be good enough to get respect in the media.

I think it's funny about Creighton. I think I thought they had been to the tourney a lot more than 4 times over the last 10 years. To me, them and Dayton are close to the same, with Dayton the better location. I mean only 1 more NCAA spot over last 10 years isn't that big of a deal.

I think the problem that Creighton will face. Some schools are going to say if we have to travel further to play a team, we might as well go to Gonzaga than Creighton.

While true, it's how you play the stats. If you go the last 15 years, it's 8 of 15. The only thing Dayton has over Creighton is location and to some, that's not much of an advantage since there is some overlap with Xavier as far as market.

I don't see a problem with the proximity of Dayton and Xavier for several reasons:

1. Intense rivalries help a league, they don't hurt it.

2. They are the same distance apart as Providence and Boston. No one ever thought of PC and BC as sharing the same market or thought of their proximity as a problem.

3. Catholic universities are not local commuter schools. They have regional appeal from which they draw their student body. Ohio is a very large state (11 million) with a large Catholic population. I expect that these 2 schools have appeal all over the state and the populations in the surrounding states from which they draw. While they overlap, they also each have their own constituencies.

4. Both have large, established fan bases as reflected by their home attendance - 12K at Dayton and 10 K at Xavier. Both have long histories which engaged alumni long ago. If either of them has a problem within their market, it's Xavier because they share their market with Cincinnati. But because Xavier has a regional niche market of Catholics and because their recent success makes them indispensible to this new league, that factor has to be overlooked.

(02-20-2013 10:21 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I think it's funny about Creighton. I think I thought they had been to the tourney a lot more than 4 times over the last 10 years. To me, them and Dayton are close to the same, with Dayton the better location. I mean only 1 more NCAA spot over last 10 years isn't that big of a deal.

I think the problem that Creighton will face. Some schools are going to say if we have to travel further to play a team, we might as well go to Gonzaga than Creighton.

The difference is that I think Creighton is better now, and has the potential to be better in the near future. And as mentioned by others, going back 15 years instead of 10 paints a different picture. Not to mention the market overlap problem.

(02-20-2013 10:59 AM)College Basketball Fan Wrote:  

(02-20-2013 10:21 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I think it's funny about Creighton. I think I thought they had been to the tourney a lot more than 4 times over the last 10 years. To me, them and Dayton are close to the same, with Dayton the better location. I mean only 1 more NCAA spot over last 10 years isn't that big of a deal.

I think the problem that Creighton will face. Some schools are going to say if we have to travel further to play a team, we might as well go to Gonzaga than Creighton.

The difference is that I think Creighton is better now, and has the potential to be better in the near future. And as mentioned by others, going back 15 years instead of 10 paints a different picture. Not to mention the market overlap problem.

They're better now because of 1 player. Had missed the tourney 4 straight years before last year.

(02-20-2013 10:48 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-20-2013 10:29 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(02-20-2013 09:42 AM)aughnanure Wrote:  

(02-19-2013 11:57 PM)College Basketball Fan Wrote:  

(02-19-2013 10:56 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  I don't know why you're projecting the future based on an analysis of this year, a single season. A bigger sample size makes more sense.

Once you include Butler and Xavier, it doesn't matter who else you put in the mix, the C7+ has advanced over 40 teams to the tournament over the past 10 years with 5 - 6 teams to the Final Four. That's a 4 - 5 bid league annually and with that number of teams in the Final 4, it's a power league by anyone's definition.

It is a gut feeling. My gut feeling is that 3 of the 7 schools leaving the broken Big East are probably going to be good, along with Butler and Xavier.

However, my gut feeling is that over half of the C7 are going to have a hard time winning games and getting into the tournament. Add Richmond, Saint Louis, and Dayton to that as well (double that for the "not a candidate" teams like Siena and Detroit).

If you have 5 strong teams and 7 teams that would be at the bottom of a power conference, you don't have a power conference. You have a slightly bigger MWC focused on the east coast instead of the west. To use a power conference analogy, the C7 would be the Big 12 without Kansas, but with five teams about where KState or Baylor are and seven TCUs and Texas Techs.

IMHO, this direction would make the C7 competitive with the A10, MWC, and nBE, not the power conferences. You have to take into account that this league doesn't have a blue blood type team, so it would have to offset top-end quality with quantity. You can argue that this league could be better than the SEC or Pac12 if those conferences had a down year, but the same argument applies to the other mid-major conferences.

If I had total control, I'd go with 10 teams (Butler + Xavier + Gonzaga/VCU/Creighton). If I had to go 12, I'd look at adding all of those teams over Richmond, Saint Louis, or Dayton. Only at 14+ would I add a team that doesn't have something basketball related that makes me say "wow." To me, the biggest issue is offsetting the teams in the C7 that haven't been strong lately.

This is an overreaction and an oversimplification. Are we going to compete with the ACC or B1G for the best conference? Of course not, and no teams we add will change that.

But could we compete with the Pac 12, SEC and Big 12? Absolutely. Those conferences that put around 3-6 teams in the tourney every year are where we are.

We are not going to be 'competing' with conferences that we have 3-4X as many bids as. The A-10 isn't getting 5 bids, much less more than 2 after the C7 raid. Marquette, Villanova, Georgetown, St. John's, Xavier, Butler, and Creighton puts this league head and shoulders above any non Power-6 and equal, if not better, than the Pac-12, SEC and Big 12 most years.

I agree that the C7+ will not compete on the level of the ACC but why not on the level of the Big Ten?

The potential membership of the C7+ has 52 bids and 6 Final Fours in the past 10 years. The current Big Ten membership has 54 bids and 6 Final fours in the past 10 years. Neither has won a national championship in the recent past 10 or 12 years. The two seem to be mirror images of each other to me.

The addition of Rutgers does nothing to improve Big Ten basketball. Maryland does improve them from 54 bids to 59 bids. But now we're comparing a 14 team league that averages 4.2 bids per member to a 12 team league that averages 4.3 bids per member. Is the 14 team league stronger?

If it's all about building bigger empires, the C7+ could also go to 14 by adding Gonzaga and St. Louis. That brings them from 52 bids to 63, or more than the Big Ten. Are they inclined to do so? I doubt it.

This isn't about a nuclear arms race to build the biggest empire. (Or is it?) The only solid evidence we have is what these programs have done in the recent past. Based on that, the C7+ is on par with the Big Ten or any of the other power conferences except for the ACC.

Part of the numbers with the Big Ten are actually funny. They now have both teams that made the title game in year 11 of the study(Indiana vs Maryland).

Even w/o that- if they are at 59 and we are at 50-52- that's them getting 6 teams in, us at 5 teams. Folks when they look at the # of bids don't look at the # of teams in the conference, just # of bids.

So, solve that by expanding to 14 and the C7+ will also get 6. Come on, the difference of one bid per year doesn't put one league into the power conference category and knock the other one out.

Sure, you can go back one year and come up with the Maryland NC and the Indiana R/U. So? Now you have one NC to none. Hardly a major difference.

The point is to try to assess these leagues based on the recent past. The farther back you go, the more remote the success becomes and the less of an indicator it is of future success. For example, the success of Maryland & Indiana at that point was under different coaches.

I understand that 10 years is certainly arbitrary, but we have to draw the line somewhere or we'll be going back to Georgetown and Villanova in the '80's.

(02-20-2013 11:02 AM)stever20 Wrote:  They're better now because of 1 player. Had missed the tourney 4 straight years before last year.

And before that string, they went to the tournament 7 of 9 years.

(02-20-2013 10:07 AM)College Basketball Fan Wrote:  My criteria for being a power conference is thus:

1. Have a championship contending team every year, either in the form of a single superpower (Kansas, Kentucky), or in the form of multiple teams that could be that good but aren't that way every year (Big East with Louisville, Syracuse, UConn, Georgetown, etc.).

OR

2. Consistently get at least 50% of the league into the tournament.

You bring up an interesting point, so let's take a look at meeting your 50% rule since 2002 (11 years):

ACC (4)- 2004, 2007, 2009, 2010
BIG (5) - 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2012
Big XII (7)- 2002, 2003, 2005, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2012
Big East (6)- 2005, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012
PAC (5)- 2002, 2003, 2007, 2008, 2009
SEC (5)- 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2008
MWC (1) - 2012

The closest any other conference came to 50% was 2004 CUSA with 6 of 14. Now lets check on the gang of 9.

C7+BU+XU (5) - 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011

So as a group of 9, without adding anyone else to the party, the C7+BU+XU is as much a power conference as the ACC, BIG, PAC and SEC under your second criteria. In fact, with Gonzaga, Dayton or VCU as number 10, the group of 10 would reach the 50% mark 7 times (or as often as the Big XII and above any other conference).

Now lets go to 12 under a few scenarios (I assume no CU without SLU, and no Gonzaga).

+CU+DU+SLU (2) - 2007, 2011
+DU+SLU+RU (3) - 2004, 2010, 2011
+CU+SLU+RU (3) - 2007, 2010, 2011
+DU+SLU+VCU (4) - 2004, 2007, 2009, 2011
+CU+SLU+VCU (3) - 2007, 2011, 2012

So the group of 9, under your criteria, is no longer as much of a power conference by going past 10 with any reasonable grouping.

Would you thus advocate staying at 10 to remain a power conference?

looking at last 5 years:
2008-2012
Illinois 2 NCAA spots, 1 win
Indiana 2 NCAA spots, 1 sweet 16, 2 wins
Iowa 0
Michigan 3 NCAA spots, 2 wins
Mich St 5 NCAA spots, 2 final 4, 3 sweet 16, 13 wins
Minnesota 3 NCAA spots
Nebraska 0
Northwestern 0
Ohio St 4 NCAA spots, 1 final 4, 3 sweet 16, 8 wins
Penn St 1 NCAA spot
Purdue 5 NCAA spots, 2 sweet 16, 7 wins
Wisconsin 5 NCAA spots, 3 sweet 16, 8 wins
Maryland 2 NCAA spots, 2 wins
total 32 NCAA spots, 3 final 4, 12 sweet 16, 43 wins

DePaul 0
Georgetown 4 NCAA spots, 2 wins
Marquette 5 NCAA spots, 6 wins
Providence 0
Seton Hall 0
St John's 1 NCAA spot
Villanova 4 NCAA spots, 1 final 4, 2 sweet 16, 7 wins
Butler 4 NCAA spots, 2 final 4, 2 sweeet 16, 11 wins
Xavier 5 NCAA spots, 4 sweet 16, 9 wins
VCU 3 NCAA spots, 1 final 4, 1 sweet 16, 6 wins

Dayton 1 NCAA spot, 1 win
Creighton 1 NCAA spot, 1 win
Saint Louis 1 NCAA spot, 1 win
total with 2/3 of those- 28 NCAA spots, 4 final 4, 9 sweet 16, 43 wins

Richmond 2 NCAA spots, 1 sweet 16, 2 wins
total with Richmond instead of VCU 27 NCAA spots, 3 final 4, 9 sweet 16, 39 wins

Big Ten:
total 32 NCAA spots, 3 final 4, 12 sweet 16, 43 wins
C7 with VCU
28 NCAA spots, 4 final 4, 9 sweet 16, 43 wins
C7 with Richmond
27 NCAA spots, 3 final 4, 9 sweet 16, 39 wins

If we take Richmond, they get 1 more spot per year, and have gone to 3 more sweet 16's, and gotten 1 more win a year.

(02-20-2013 11:07 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  So, solve that by expanding to 14 and the C7+ will also get 6.

I honestly think 14 makes a ton of sense. It started out as 10 being a given, then 10 became possible with 12 being probable, but now 12-14 is the most recent configuration floated. With the trend towards 16 and 20 team super conferences, can the C7 really afford to take half a loaf and not take in all the best basketball teams out there? And why would Fox settle?

As we've discussed, every candidate outside of X and Butler has their potential flaws (distance, fit, small size/fan base, ratings, market, etc.). If Gonzaga comes on board and then eventually falls off when/if Few leaves, being stuck with Spokane hurts a lot less if any one of VCU, Creighton, Dayton, SLU or Richmond (+ one more team) step up and individually, or in combination, fill that gap. And that's a worst case scenario. Gonzaga could stay strong and one, two or three of those teams could rise to that level or beyond.

(02-20-2013 11:13 AM)MUAvalanche Wrote:  You bring up an interesting point, so let's take a look at meeting your 50% rule since 2002 (11 years):

ACC (4)- 2004, 2007, 2009, 2010
BIG (5) - 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2012
Big XII (7)- 2002, 2003, 2005, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2012
Big East (6)- 2005, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012
PAC (5)- 2002, 2003, 2007, 2008, 2009
SEC (5)- 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2008
MWC (1) - 2012

The closest any other conference came to 50% was 2004 CUSA with 6 of 14. Now lets check on the gang of 9.

C7+BU+XU (5) - 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011

So as a group of 9, without adding anyone else to the party, the C7+BU+XU is as much a power conference as the ACC, BIG, PAC and SEC under your second criteria. In fact, with Gonzaga, Dayton or VCU as number 10, the group of 10 would reach the 50% mark 7 times (or as often as the Big XII and above any other conference).

Now lets go to 12 under a few scenarios (I assume no CU without SLU, and no Gonzaga).

+CU+DU+SLU (2) - 2007, 2011
+DU+SLU+RU (3) - 2004, 2010, 2011
+CU+SLU+RU (3) - 2007, 2010, 2011
+DU+SLU+VCU (4) - 2004, 2007, 2009, 2011
+CU+SLU+VCU (3) - 2007, 2011, 2012

So the group of 9, under your criteria, is no longer as much of a power conference by going past 10 with any reasonable grouping.

Would you thus advocate staying at 10 to remain a power conference?

I would advocate remaining at 10. I think that gives you the best basketball conference. I would note, however, that you cannot just take a team from a different conference and expect them to stay as competitive in the C7.

(02-20-2013 11:43 AM)College Basketball Fan Wrote:  I would advocate remaining at 10. I think that gives you the best basketball conference. I would note, however, that you cannot just take a team from a different conference and expect them to stay as competitive in the C7.

I agree, but I would also note that some in the C7 will have an opportunity to improve their records, RPI and chances at the NCAA tournament by moving from a BE schedule to a C7 schedule. Someone like Providence, who I think is really making a move forward, comes to mind.

(02-20-2013 10:07 AM)College Basketball Fan Wrote:  

(02-20-2013 09:40 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  Yes, I overlooked the MVC of the 1970's. There day was done when the Metro was formed in 1975 and the MVC lost Louisville, Memphis, etc. Indiana State was their last hurrah.

But my point remains the same. They haven't gotten anyone to a Final 4 in a very long time, i.e. 34 years. Let's look at the other midmajors you've mentioned in terms of Final 4's:

A10 - 1 Final Four in the entire history of the league - UMass (1996)

Mountain West - No Final Fours in league history

West Coast - San Francisco (1955, 56, 57)

New Big East - UConn (1999, 2004, 09, 11), Memphis (2008)

So, the nBE is the only one that has a team that has gone to the Final Four in recent memory. But the nBE is lacking depth. That group has gotten only 26 tournament bids in the last 10 years. That's a 2-3 bid league.

The C7+ has 50-52 bids in the last 10 years. That's a 5 bid league. And if they want to think outside the box, they could replace Dayton with Gonzaga, who has 10 bids in the last 10 years. That would give the C7+ 57 bids, or almost 6 (5.7) per year. No matter how you slice it, the C7+ is a notch above the nBE. More bids, more Final 4's.

We can do a more detailed analysis to show that none of these midmajors has the history of getting the number of bids that the C7+ have. But the bottom line is that the only way that the C7+ doesn't qualify as a power conference is if you require a team with a history of multiple national championships that gets to the tournament most of the time.

If that's the case, then the old Big East didn't qualify as a power conference either because they didn't have anyone who met those criteria until UConn's recent success. Are you really going to tell me that the old Big East was not a power conference?

One correction: the MWC would have UNLV, which has 4 Final Fours in the school's history. I don't know about any other school in that conference.

My criteria for being a power conference is thus:

1. Have a championship contending team every year, either in the form of a single superpower (Kansas, Kentucky), or in the form of multiple teams that could be that good but aren't that way every year (Big East with Louisville, Syracuse, UConn, Georgetown, etc.).

OR

2. Consistently get at least 50% of the league into the tournament.


I don't think the C7 + Butler/Xavier/Dayton/SLU/Richmond meets the first criteria. I see Georgetown as a potential Final Four team on good years, and may Butler and Xavier will get to that level as well, but I don't feel like there are enough good teams to guarantee that one will be that level almost every year.

Additionally, I don't feel that the C7 would meet the second criteria. That would be a 3-5 bid league, and I feel getting 50% of the teams into the tournament would be an exception, not the rule. Essentially, what I'm saying is that if you forced me to say which teams COULD be tournament level over the next 5-10 years, I would say:

C7:
Georgetown
Villanova
Marquette
St. John's

Candidates:
Butler
Xavier
Creighton
Gonzaga
VCU

That doesn't mean that DePaul couldn't regain its swagger or that Saint Louis won't continue to stay competitive, but I feel these are your best basketball schools for the near future. Loading up on teams outside this list makes it a lot harder to justify the C7 as a power conference. They may be better on some year's than the Pac 12 or Big 12 minus Kansas, but that doesn't mean they will be good enough to get respect in the media.

I didn't include UNLV because they were an independent when they went to those Final Fours. I was talking about the history of the conference, which was only formed in 1999.

I can't go on anything but history. And the fact is that in recent years, the C7+ has had championship contending teams almost every year, using the Elite 8 as the definition of championship contender:

2012 -
2011 - Butler R/U, VCU FF
2010 - Butler R/U
2009 - Villanova FF
2008 - Xavier E8
2007 - Georgetown FF
2006 - Villanova E8
2005 -
2004 - Xavier E8
2003 - Marquette FF

Your claim of a 3-5 bid league is not fact based. This group has had 52 bids over the past 10 years. That's an average 0f 5.2 per year, or a 5-6 bid league.

The record of 6 Final fours is surpassed only by the Big East over the past 10 years. The number of bids (52) is almost identical to the Big Ten (54).

You can use your gut to project into a future of a 3-5 bid league, but your gut isn't a fact. The fact is that this group has been as successful as any group in the country over the past 10 years. Only the Big East has been more successful and they needed a membership of 16 teams to do that.

I don't think there's a chance that we go to only 10. I think that ship sailed a long time ago quite frankly.

(02-20-2013 11:43 AM)College Basketball Fan Wrote:  

(02-20-2013 11:13 AM)MUAvalanche Wrote:  You bring up an interesting point, so let's take a look at meeting your 50% rule since 2002 (11 years):

ACC (4)- 2004, 2007, 2009, 2010
BIG (5) - 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2012
Big XII (7)- 2002, 2003, 2005, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2012
Big East (6)- 2005, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012
PAC (5)- 2002, 2003, 2007, 2008, 2009
SEC (5)- 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2008
MWC (1) - 2012

The closest any other conference came to 50% was 2004 CUSA with 6 of 14. Now lets check on the gang of 9.

C7+BU+XU (5) - 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011

So as a group of 9, without adding anyone else to the party, the C7+BU+XU is as much a power conference as the ACC, BIG, PAC and SEC under your second criteria. In fact, with Gonzaga, Dayton or VCU as number 10, the group of 10 would reach the 50% mark 7 times (or as often as the Big XII and above any other conference).

Now lets go to 12 under a few scenarios (I assume no CU without SLU, and no Gonzaga).

+CU+DU+SLU (2) - 2007, 2011
+DU+SLU+RU (3) - 2004, 2010, 2011
+CU+SLU+RU (3) - 2007, 2010, 2011
+DU+SLU+VCU (4) - 2004, 2007, 2009, 2011
+CU+SLU+VCU (3) - 2007, 2011, 2012

So the group of 9, under your criteria, is no longer as much of a power conference by going past 10 with any reasonable grouping.

Would you thus advocate staying at 10 to remain a power conference?

I would advocate remaining at 10. I think that gives you the best basketball conference. I would note, however, that you cannot just take a team from a different conference and expect them to stay as competitive in the C7.

Chances are they'll be more competitive. That's what happened when the Big East was originally formed. Every one of the original members became stronger within only a few years.

(02-20-2013 11:54 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(02-20-2013 11:43 AM)College Basketball Fan Wrote:  

(02-20-2013 11:13 AM)MUAvalanche Wrote:  You bring up an interesting point, so let's take a look at meeting your 50% rule since 2002 (11 years):

ACC (4)- 2004, 2007, 2009, 2010
BIG (5) - 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2012
Big XII (7)- 2002, 2003, 2005, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2012
Big East (6)- 2005, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012
PAC (5)- 2002, 2003, 2007, 2008, 2009
SEC (5)- 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2008
MWC (1) - 2012

The closest any other conference came to 50% was 2004 CUSA with 6 of 14. Now lets check on the gang of 9.

C7+BU+XU (5) - 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011

So as a group of 9, without adding anyone else to the party, the C7+BU+XU is as much a power conference as the ACC, BIG, PAC and SEC under your second criteria. In fact, with Gonzaga, Dayton or VCU as number 10, the group of 10 would reach the 50% mark 7 times (or as often as the Big XII and above any other conference).

Now lets go to 12 under a few scenarios (I assume no CU without SLU, and no Gonzaga).

+CU+DU+SLU (2) - 2007, 2011
+DU+SLU+RU (3) - 2004, 2010, 2011
+CU+SLU+RU (3) - 2007, 2010, 2011
+DU+SLU+VCU (4) - 2004, 2007, 2009, 2011
+CU+SLU+VCU (3) - 2007, 2011, 2012

So the group of 9, under your criteria, is no longer as much of a power conference by going past 10 with any reasonable grouping.

Would you thus advocate staying at 10 to remain a power conference?

I would advocate remaining at 10. I think that gives you the best basketball conference. I would note, however, that you cannot just take a team from a different conference and expect them to stay as competitive in the C7.

Chances are they'll be more competitive. That's what happened when the Big East was originally formed. Every one of the original members became stronger within only a few years.

I think it's very possible there won't be a lull for new schools coming into the conference. I mean- right now- C7 last 5 years- 14 NCAA spots, 15 wins. The 5 incoming schools- bare minimum 12 NCAA spots, 23 wins(and possibly 14 spots, 28 wins). think about that.

(02-20-2013 12:05 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I think it's very possible there won't be a lull for new schools coming into the conference. I mean- right now- C7 last 5 years- 14 NCAA spots, 15 wins. The 5 incoming schools- bare minimum 12 NCAA spots, 23 wins(and possibly 14 spots, 28 wins). think about that.

Its nice in a vacuum, but I tend to look at a bigger picture than a 5 year snapshot. That can be impacted by a good recruiting class or 2. I look at 10-15-20 years for longevity and smoothing out the highs and lows.

Just looking at bids a couple of different ways (DU=DePaul, UD=Dayton):

5 years
C7 - 14 bids
Other 5 - 12-15 bids (9 BU/XU)

10 years
C7 - 25 bids
Other 5 - 22-27 bids (15 BU/XU)

15 years
C7 - 35 bids
Other 5 - 32-38 bids (21 BU/XU)

20 years
C7 - 51 bids
Other 5 - 38-44 bids (25 BU/XU)

5 years
MU, XU - 5
GU, VU, BU - 4
VCU - 3
UR - 2
SJU, CU, UD, SLU - 1
DU, PC, SHU - 0

10 years
XU - 9
MU - 8
GU, VU, BU - 6
VCU - 5
CU - 4
UD, UR - 3
SHU - 2
SJU, DU, PC, SLU - 1

15 years
XU - 12
MU, BU - 9
CU - 8
GU, VU - 7
SJU, VCU - 5
UD, UR - 4
SLU, SHU - 3
DU, PC - 2

20 years
XU - 15
MU - 13
GU - 11
VU, BU - 10
CU - 8
SJU, VCU - 6
SHU, SLU - 5
PC, UD, UR - 4
DU - 2

so looking at your chart- from 15 years on in, it's a wash. The only time that c7 dominant was 20 years.

Also- it's worth reminding that C7 is 7 teams, others are 5 teams.
5 years
C7 - 14 bids (2 per school)
Other 5 - 12-15 bids (9 BU/XU) (2.4-3 per school)
10 years
C7 - 25 bids (3.6 per school)
Other 5 - 22-27 bids (15 BU/XU) (4.4-5.4 per school)
15 years
C7 - 35 bids (5 per school)
Other 5 - 32-38 bids (21 BU/XU) (6.4-7.6 per school)
20 years
C7 - 51 bids (7.3 per school)
Other 5 - 38-44 bids (25 BU/XU) (7.6-8.8 per school)

pretty close to the same. pretty much, I don't see the new schools having any where near as tough of a transition time as the new schools did in the Big East before. We're just not as tough right now. Not overall.